<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2015 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. Sf not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'title' => 'Reassessing my decision',
	'body' => <<<END
<p>
	My research on $a[ccTLD] policies is not yet complete, but looking upon my current notes, I am assured that I made the correct choice in choosing the registry of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe.
	It is unfortunate that they do not implement $a[DNSSEC] records, that is for sure.
	However, if I had not chosen a registry that did not even ask for a telephone number, I wouldn&apos;t have known that registering a domain name without one was even possible.
	I would not have been able to cancel my telephone line out of fear that it might come back to bite me on the domain front.
	My current notes indicate that there are six registries that do not even ask for a telephone number, as least if you register directly with the registry.
	Of these, three prohibit short labels, two had already sold all their short labels, and one was the registry I ended up buying from.
	There could still be other registries that do not ask for telephone numbers, so I must finish looking through them all, but I have no regrets about where I am right now.
</p>
<p>
	I might have finished researching all $a[ccTLD]s tonight apart from those with the most cryptic registry websites, but thankfully, Vanessa wanted me to go on a walk with her, giving me an excuse for a much-needed break.
	Though there&apos;s not much physical work involved with this research, it is mentally exhausting.
	This work nears completion though, so it&apos;s only a matter of time until I am done.
	Now that my needs have changed, there is a very high probability that I will use the results of this research to narrow the scope of any later research that I decide to do.
	If I don&apos;t focus solely on the six registries that are forward-thinking enough to avoid even asking for a telephone number, I will almost certainly at least focus solely on registries that allow one to get out of the telephone number requirement.
	I have moved the old <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml">usable $a[ccTLD]s</a> page to a new location to make room for an actual <a href="/en/URI_research/best_ccTLDs.xhtml">recommended $a[TLD]s</a> page.
	Once my current preliminary report on each $a[ccTLD] is complete, this page will probably contain only information on the <code>//cg.</code>, <code>//dj.</code>, <code>//hm.</code>, <code>//pn.</code>, <code>//st.</code>, <code>//to.</code>, and <code>//onion.</code> $a[TLD]s, as well as any relevant subdomains.
	It is still possible that I might find other forward-thinking $a[ccTLD]s to add to the list, but at this point, I think the chance is unlikely.
	If I can find reasonable evidence that other classes of $a[TLD]s are also exempt from $a[IANA]&apos;s idiotic telephone number requirement, I might even later be able to add something else to the list besides those six $a[ccTLD]s and one onion routing $a[TLD].
	I suspect that domains representing a place (such as <code>//berlin.</code> and/or internationalized domains (potentially only a subset of internationalized domains, those representing places) could be covered by similar rules as the $a[ccTLD]s are.
</p>
<p>
	I&apos;ve located two usable registries today, though neither made it onto my recommended $a[TLD] list.
	The first is that of the <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#sd">Republic of the Sudan</a>.
	It was hard to tell for sure, but I think registration at the second level is open to all while registration at the third level is restricted.
	The second registry was that of <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#hotel.tz">the</a> <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#info.tz">United</a> <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#me.tz">Republic</a> <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#mobi.tz">of</a> <a href="/en/URI_research/usable_ccTLDs.xhtml#tv.tz">Tanzania</a>.
	This registry was a bit unclear as to its registrant eligibility requirements as well if I recall, but registration seemed to be restricted at the second level as well as at the third level under certain second-level labels.
	Some second-level labels seem to be open for registration by all though.
	Both registries disallow leaving the telephone number field blank, requiring the registrant to at least enter the string &quot;no telephone available&quot;, so I&apos;m classifying them as barely usable by those without telephone numbers.
</p>
<p>
	My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
</p>
END
);
